Popla Reviews 

An absolute sham of a service- obviously in the back pocket of the private parking companies - an absolute joke
Completely seperate but funded by who? Single process so no grounds for appeal? A set up where you have to jump through hoops to provide evidence- completely unfit for purpose

Absolutely shocking the appeal system is a Joke seriously, went to hospital to see my critical ill relative this was about the 5th time I went to see him so I know how the payment machine works but this time it wouldn't accept my registration so I was prompted to input time which I did payment accepted via card and I left.1 week later I get a letter stating I never paid sent company proof of payment from bank they didn't accept so made a apeal with Popla and what a waste of time that was i sent bank statements showing numerous payments to same hospital for parking most importantly the one that they were disputing was showing aswell but they favoured the parking company even after seeing i paid and me explaining everything.If you can provide proof of payment on that day and other days that were paid for and still have your appeal rejected then what is the point having a company like Popla.

Received a final demand PCN from an operator despite never receiving the original PCN so had no ability to appeal. Because we haven't appealed internally (impossible) POPLA won't consider the case.

I do not think they deserve even one star.
I am extremely disappointed with my experience of the POPLA appeals process.
I spent considerable time gathering evidence, including photographs taken from a driver's perspective, proof that I was a genuine paying customer, a witness statement and detailed submissions explaining why I believed the Parking Charge Notice had been issued unfairly.
The final decision acknowledged that I was a genuine customer, accepted that I had remained inside the restaurant throughout my visit and accepted that I had simply lost track of time. Despite this, I do not feel that my evidence received the same careful scrutiny as the operator's evidence.
What concerns me most is that the operator argued I could have asked the restaurant manager for permission to stay longer, yet it was also accepted that customers are not told this anywhere on the signage or inside the restaurant. If customers are unaware such a process exists, how can they reasonably be expected to use it?
I was also disappointed that my photographs, which showed the signs from a driver's perspective, appeared to carry little weight compared with the operator's close-up promotional photographs.
Since the appeal, I have revisited the site and noticed that the signage has changed. I cannot say why it has changed, but it does leave me questioning whether the previous signage was as clear as the operator suggested.
My overall impression is that POPLA places significant reliance on the operator's submissions while giving much less weight to the practical experience and evidence provided by motorists.
An independent appeals service should not only apply the rules but should also critically examine whether those rules have been communicated fairly and whether all the evidence has been properly considered.
Unfortunately, I came away feeling that this did not happen in my case. MacDonalds Sleaford.

I had four identical cases, same place different days, same alleged breach. 3 of these were accepted at POPLA and 1 of them was rejected. How does that happen?

One assessor says the consideration period applies, another says it doesn't apply because they don't want it to.

One assessor says that looking at the evidence including photos and the operators signage plan, that the signage at the locus was inadequate (which it objectively was), another assessor says there is signage throughout the site, which was simply untrue.

One assessor says a period of parking is required on the notice to hold the Registered Keeper liable (as per POFA 2012), another assessor says a period of parking isn't required because there are timestamps on the pictures online (spanning only 2 minutes I might add).

I don't have to be insulting, because it speaks for itself.

I made a complaint to POPLA regarding this.

My complaint opened: "I am raising yet another formal complaint regarding the decision issued by the appointed Assessor for the above reference. The crux of this complaint is not that I am merely unhappy with the decision, but that the reasoning for reaching that decision is entirely legally and procedurally flawed. The Assessor failed to evaluate the actual contents of the evidence submitted, relying instead on generic, superficial assumptions."

POPLA responded with the classic: "Thank you for your email outlining the reasons why you’re unhappy with the decision that has been reached by the assessor in your appeal. This was passed to me by the POPLA team as I’m responsible for investigating complaints."

POPLA summarised my complaint—reframing it as simply "outlining the reasons why you’re unhappy with the decision"—which is factually incorrect and mischaracterises my complaint. They also did no investigation of course.

The issue is the assessors are not applying the Code of Practice and the law accurately or even consistently. It means cases are decided on a roll of the dice, and not on their merits and specific facts of the case. This is not acceptable and will be their inevitable downfall. Very unprofessional service. I note if POPLA respond to this complaint saying "sorry that we were unable to uphold your appeal" or "sorry that we were unable to provide you with the outcome that you were hoping for" it only serves to demonstrate that they use boilerplate template responses and do not consider or are simply unable to comprehend the issues raised in this complaint.

I have had 24 of 28 POPLA appeals accepted in total, but I still have absolutely nothing positive to say about POPLA because the inconsistency and inaccuracy makes this service fundamentally worthless.

The assessors do not know how to asses. The cannot compare photo evidence which was so clear. They have wasted my time and energy will not recommend using their service. Plus they take months to respond!!

Did not find them helpful, explained exactly what happened no signs where i stopped did not even exit vehicle, unfair

I was given parking charge for following parking rules
Appealed twice and gave valid evidence
They ignored my evidence and after 4 months still will not accept my appeals and said I need to pay £100
I’m a pensioner who 100% checks where I park to avoid parking fines
Why does company popla ask for evidence to appeal and just ignore it
Terrible - taking money off people who have done nothing wrong
This has been stressing me since 12/6/2026

POPLA is a scam. The organisation appears to exist primarily to protect and benefit ticket agencies rather than genuinely advocate for independent decision making.

The saying, “Who pays the piper calls the tune,” has surely never felt more appropriate than in the case of POPLA. When the organisation responsible for adjudicating parking disputes is funded by the very industry it is supposed to independently scrutinise, it is hardly surprising that they are unfair.

The whole setup raises serious questions about independence and accountability. It feels like a case of people marking their own homework, with little meaningful protection for the general public.

The government and relevant authorities need to take a serious look at how this organisation operates and whether it is genuinely serving the public interest.

Quite frankly, the whole thing is an absolute disgrace.

They're a joke to be honest, absolutely no interest in considering your appeal just like the parking companies that issue the tickets.

Throughout my contact with them they have lied and withheld information to avoid having to consider my appeal.

I highly doubt they're independent like they claim to be.

Absolutely baffled by the decision to not overturn my fine. Both companies confirmed I had paid for a valid car ticket but due to upgrade of my car I put my old registration vehicle in and I’m still expected to pay a £100 fine. This doesn’t sound right at all. The information on the decision was wrong also as it states the company reduced it to a £20 fee which is a complete lie. I sent the appeal on the basis I was being charged £100 how can I get this looked into again!

Absolutely no help at all in my case with Parking Eye
Rejected all my explanations and reasoning, taking the side of Parking Eye without listening to my side.
After 6 months I won my case with them but all by myself not with any help from these jokers.

Updated review /09/26 to reflect that popla don’t follow the code of practice they are suppose to review all cases against

An absolute waste of time for any motorist trying to raise legitimate accessibility issues. When I appealed a parking charge after finding all designated disabled bays fully occupied by non-badge holders—forcing me to park safely nearby—POPLA completely glossed over the reality of the situation.Instead of addressing the lack of accessible infrastructure or the operator's responsibilities, they hid entirely behind strict, rigid contract law. They ruled that disability legislation and reasonable adjustments are outside their remit, effectively giving private parking operators a free pass to ignore disabled motorists dealing with full or abused accessible bays.

What makes this even more frustrating is that POPLA completely ignores its own industry standards. Under the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, operators are bound by clear guidelines requiring a 100-place car park to provide a mandatory percentage of accessible bays (typically 5% or more, meaning at least 5 proper spaces). Yet, when an operator fails to maintain or police those spaces, leaving disabled drivers stranded, POPLA washes its hands and claims it's "not within their remit" to look at anything other than a strict contractual breach. If you expect an independent appeals service to hold parking operators accountable to their own code of practice or the Equality Act, do not expect it here.

Zero Stars
A fake appeals service, totally uninterested in fairness or indeed honesty.
They are funded by the car parking industry and look after their interests.
If people take the time to Appeal then the 'penalty' charge will increase to £100 so they make an extra £50 per Appeal.
They do not answer questions, they do not allow FOI, they are entirely unregulated. They also produce their own so called 'code of practice'.
I have complained but will not even get any answers,
So, no answers as usual.

I appealed a PCN issued in error by parking eye, as I’d paid the parking fee prior to leaving the car park at Llandudno.
POPLA responded to my appeal by deeming it to be unsuccessful, despite parking eye acknowledging that I’d paid. Claiming that I had not paid enough! Maybe they’re unaware that it’s their machines that determine and advise the amount to pay.
POPLA, in their report even state that parking eye have a admitted that I’ve paid and wrote
“The operator has also provided evidence from its online transaction report which confirms the appellant paid for three hours of parking time. As the vehicle remained on site for an additional two hours and 26 minutes beyond the free parking period, the appellant was required to pay £6.00 which is sufficient for up to three hours of parking.“
This decision raises questions about POPLA’s impartiality and competence. Indeed, it brings the entire appeals process into disrepute.
Looks like I’ll have to go to court.

Yes agree with all the ones before me! This company is bias and ignores facts! Pretty sure they get a % or something in return there no way on earth that you say that the company couldn’t locate the payment! After i send them proof from the bank! I am sorry but why that is my fault and then leaning towards the big off course ! Oh yeah I forgot you get juicy bonus probably! Scammers! I realy hope that one day karma will get you! You deserve it!

No use whatsoever if you have a hire car.
POPLA chooses not to consider appeals where the penalty has already been paid.
In the case of hire cars, ALL hire companies pay up straight away, so the hirer has zero ability to be able to appeal the fine which is automatically taken. (From your card as the hire customer).
Not much protection from aggressive parking companies for the consumer if they have a hire car.

As I said ....Popla of no use if you're in a hire car.

Post POPLA response: as you can see they're actually not disputing what I said

POPLA's decision-making process is heavily weighted in favour of parking operators.

In my case, the assessor accepted that I was a genuine customer, that the venue was exceptionally busy, and that I had provided my vehicle registration details to staff after being told I would need additional parking time. Despite this, the appeal was rejected because the parking operator's records did not show an exemption.

The core issue was never properly addressed. If a customer follows the instructions given on site and the business fails to pass on the information, that should not automatically become the customer's responsibility.

The decision relied on technical compliance rather than a fair assessment of the evidence and circumstances presented.

No wonder POPLA has a terrible record on Trust Pilot

3055461411259
Above penlty charge was wrong and who responded she did not check everything because I did not park in the restricted parking space .
I did park in the main Road to help a pedestrian.
I did ask to provide me evidence however they did not provide me
POPLA Reference:
19 June 2026
Reference no:3055461411259
Vehicle reg: WM71
popla reference no:8651706320

POPLA is not worth the paper it’s written on

We appealed to POPLA over what, in my view, should have been a slam-dunk case — and they found in favour of the parking company. TWICE.

We had the physical parking ticket. It showed the correct date, time, amount paid and even the number of the machine we used. We left before the ticket expired. We also provided bank evidence showing that the £4 payment had left our account.

So how did a £4 parking ticket end up costing us £170?

Because the machine didn’t print our vehicle registration number on the ticket.

That was it.

Because the registration wasn’t printed, the parking company claimed our vehicle wasn’t recorded on its system. Despite us producing the actual ticket AND proof of payment, POPLA refused to accept that this could have been a machine or system error and found in the parking company’s favour — twice.

What more could we realistically have provided? We proved we paid. We proved when we paid. We proved how much we paid. We proved which machine issued the ticket. We still had the physical ticket. We left within the paid-for period.

A quick search also shows reports from other motorists describing problems at this car park involving registration numbers being printed incorrectly, partially or apparently not at all.

Yet somehow the motorist is held responsible when the machine fails to record or print the registration correctly.

We have now reluctantly paid £170 to bring the matter to an end, although I’m seriously considering taking this further on principle.

If this is what an “independent” appeals service considers a fair assessment of the evidence, I have very little confidence in the protection POPLA supposedly provides motorists.